this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
634 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
81908 readers
3419 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
DVD is perfectly fine resolution, not everyone even has a 4K screen or TV. Most people still have 720x1080 or 1080x1920p screens or TVs. Our tv personally is 720x1080 and it looks just fine.
Way too many DVDs are interlaced/telecined though.
Or worse, some hellish combination of both, because the producers edited different sources together. It makes scaled footage, panning, and some motion look really awful or jittery once you notice it.
Blu rays don't necessarily escape this either, as they butcher the conversion to 24p and then you can't even fix it.
For all their problems, streaming giants usual do this better. Amazon (and probably Netflix) had employees hanging out in the doom9 A/V forums long ago.
Distance and size makes the most difference.
If you're sitting ~7' back from a 50" TV it really doesn't matter if it's 720, 1080, 4k, or 8k.
You have to be right up on it to tell or have a huge screen.
Nicer TVs do have better color and contrast that you can tell from any distance. But generally you have to have something to compare it to for it to really matter. Dark scenes on a poor quality TV can look awful.
But many times they're encoded dreadfully anyway, and DVDs tend to be better in this respect.
Interlacing is awful though.
That's a 15 year old TV at least and of course you don't see a difference on that. My 4k is at least 6 years old. If I bought one now I would not be able to buy lower res.
DVD is pal or ntsc and if you played that on a monitor the picture is as small as phone. It's like the lowest SVGA res
Dvd video on a cell phone looks great
I found out the hard way that 4k Blu-ray need a special player. That it won't work on Ps2/PS3/PS4 I already have. Only "regular blue-ray play on those.
Yeah, you need a PS5 to play ultras. But what's even dumber is neither 4 nor 5 can play regular old music CDs
UHD blu-rays didn't even come out until 2016 which is years after any of the devices you listed. Also the discs themselves hold twice as much data as a regular blu-ray so it makes sense that playstations released before it even existed don't have drives capable of reading the discs.
Heck CRTs were standard at 480p and nobody had any problems
People did have problems,, there just wasn't an (affordable) alternative. If you would go back to the 70/80's and offered anyone the choice between 480p and 1080p, all else being equal. Would anyone pick 480? I know I wouldn't
It's not because we learned to live with it or didn't know better, that it was the best option.
I lived through the 70s and 80s. Didn't know what 480p even was til the 90s, so I have direct experience with CRT usage. Bonus: we didn't even have a color TV til the mid 80s at my house
Because you didn't know it was called 480p or knew of better options doesn't mean you can't see that it wasn't great or improvable. You knew colour existed before getting a colour, TV so you knew it could be better...
People had 56k modems and no one had any problems, my Gameboy was monochrome and you saw nothing in the sun, no problems there either...